CJEU specifies protection for works of applied art

On 4 December 2025, the CJEU delivered its ruling on how furniture and other objects of applied art should be examined to establish their eligibility for copyright protection as ‘works’ of applied art, in joined cases C-580/23 and C-795/23.

Background to the decision

The proceedings in question concern the Swedish companies Mio AB et al. and Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (Asplund). Asplund designs and manufactures furniture, particularly dining tables from the ‘Palais Royal’ series. Mio operates in the furniture and interior design retail sector, selling dining tables from its ‘Cord’ series. Asplund claimed that the ‘Palais Royal’ tables were protected as works of applied art and that Mio had infringed its copyright with the ‘Cord’ tables.

The second case involved a similar set of facts between USM U. Schärer Söhne AG and konektra GmbH in Germany.

The referring courts in Sweden and Germany asked the CJEU various questions, such as how everyday objects should be assessed as works of applied art, and in which cases such works are infringed.

Assessment by the CJEU

Firstly, the EU Court of Justice addresses the overlap between copyright and design protection. It clarifies that these two types of protection have different objectives and requirements, meaning there is no rule-exception relationship between them. A work of applied art is protected by copyright if it is considered original, reflecting the creator’s personality through their free and creative decisions. However, this originality is lacking if the creation of the object was determined by technical considerations, rules, or other constraints that left no room for artistic freedom. Design protection, on the other hand, depends on objective protection criteria of novelty and individuality, assessed in comparison with older designs.

The Court then specifies the criteria for assessing the originality of works of applied art. According to these criteria, an object must ‘reflect’ the personality of its creator by ‘expressing’ their free and creative decisions in order to be considered an original creation. While the creative process and the author’s intentions may be taken into account, this is only possible if these aspects are evident in the object itself. Therefore, the author’s creative decisions must be sought and identified in the form of the object. External factors, such as the presentation of the design at exhibitions or in museums, or its recognition in professional circles, are irrelevant.

Finally, the Court addresses the question of when copyright infringement occurs. It states that infringement exists if the creative elements of the protected work have been recognisably incorporated into the alleged infringing object. The overall impression created by the two works and the level of creativity of the original work are irrelevant.

Significance for the design industry and practice

For rights holders, the decision is an important confirmation. Copyright protection extends beyond ‘works of art’ in the traditional sense to include furniture, lamps, game pieces, and all manner of design objects. Previous or parallel design protection does not affect copyright protection.

For a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must be original. In its ruling, the CJEU made it clear that certain factors are irrelevant when assessing whether an everyday article is original. According to the ruling, the creator’s subjective intention is irrelevant. Design prizes and other awards conferred after the article’s creation are also irrelevant.

For designers and product manufacturers, it is crucial that their personality is reflected in the objects they have created; the design should express their creative freedom. However, if the idea and expression coincide because technical functions dictate expression, limiting the possibilities for implementing an idea, the criterion of originality is not met. This is also reflected in infringement, because the creative elements of the original work must be recognisable in the infringing object.